thoughts on upspoken rules

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Too bad it wasn't a Holiday Inn Express.

I got a great night's sleep last night, and when I woke up this morning (looking at the right side of the grass) this was still the NFHS rule:

7-2-1: The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds
to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of
bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.

Officials, in the past, may have unofficially (wink, wink) interpreted this rule (the rule itself didn't change) differently given a situation involving a choice of calling a possible, close "over the back" foul, or giving the ball to the "wrong" team (everybody's happy, team doesn't get the ball it rightly deserves, but it also doesn't get a close "over the back" foul that it may, or may not deserve). Many officials no longer interpret this situation this way, living in the age of everything being recorded (my neighbor, across the street, just informed me that if I ever suspect that a package was stolen off my front stoop, that she's got a camera aimed in my house's general direction, and that she can check out the situation to help the police).

Officials have never tweaked Rule 7-2-1 in regard to legal "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact". This, and the situation above, are not comparable situations because while "over the back" contact may be illegal in some cases, "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" has never been illegal. It's like comparing apples to meatloaf © 2018 Raymond.

It's black, or it's white, there's no gray. "Hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" is legal, and Rule 7-2-1 persists in this situation. Ball goes to the team that didn't touch it last. Period. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

The "over the back everybody's happy" situation? Well, that's another story for another time. I'll bring the s'mores.

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back. Shouldn't penalize athletes that can go and get it unless they actually displace someone in between.

I guess I would be surprised to hear a d1 coach has actually been told, or understands, that if his inside guy goes up to gather with one hand, and someone jumps from behind him and hits his guys hand while it's on the ball, and it goes out, it's out on his guy. I'll ask someone that coaches at that level sometime.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back. Shouldn't penalize athletes that can go and get it unless they actually displace someone in between.

I guess I would be surprised to hear a d1 coach has actually been told, or understands, that if his inside guy goes up to gather with one hand, and someone jumps from behind him and hits his guys hand while it's on the ball, and it goes out, it's out on his guy. I'll ask someone that coaches at that level sometime.

Coaches need to do a better job with rules study and paying attention to preseason rules videos and clinics.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back.

Point taken, but please note that I always used the phrase "over the back" in quotes. As an official, I should never use the phrase "over the back", but in the case of this thread I thought that it brought clarity to the situation.

From my magazine article:

"Over the back", reported by an official to the table on a rebounding foul, is, in reality, probably a pushing foul. Over the back is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called, and this should be reported to the table as such.

[Pantherdreams]

I don't know about unspoken rules but I do know rules tend to be pretty straight forward.

Specifically if the ball goes out of bounds then whoever last touched the ball is responsible and the other team gets the ball.

If you feel like someone gained an advantage (getting the ball back) because of contact that can be deemed a foul. Then call the foul.

Because Billy Mac likes it so much likes it so much when I speak Canadian I believe their is a shinny expression that applies (fyi shinny is an informal pickup hockey game with limited gear and rules):

Toques don't fall of on their own.

If something happens that shouldn't because of illegal contact then that contact is not ok.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

... if the ball goes out of bounds then whoever last touched the ball is responsible and the other team gets the ball.

If you feel like someone gained an advantage because of contact that can be deemed a foul. Then call the foul.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Simple. To the point. It's the Canadian way.

Toques? Let me whip out my Canadian-American dictionary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

...shinny is an informal pickup hockey game with limited gear and rules ...

We call it pond hockey. No goals, just rocks on the ice. No goaltenders. No hard checking. Keep the puck on the ice. No pads, no helmets. Some had padded hockey gloves, others wore work gloves. I hated it when the puck slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of pucks that way. Also hated it when one of my friends slid over to the deeper part of the pond where the water wasn't frozen. Lost lots of friends that way. Those heavy hockey skates make it hard to come up for air.

[thedewed]

More on the issue at college level of inside player going up for rebound, has one hand in contact, outside player also goes up and hits player 1's hand while on ball and ball goes out of bounds. some of you said by rule in college this is out on inside guy, whose hand was hit, since it was on ball, and we have that exception. I don't think that is right, because in the rule book, it says it only applies where there is player control. there is no player control if a rebounder gets up and initially gets one hand on the ball, with opponent having his hand on inside player's hand and knocking it out of bounds. One hand on ball in this situation is not player control.

The NCAA language:

It shall be legal for a defender to accidentally hit the hand of a ballhandler when reaching to block or slap the ball when there is player control with
that player’s hand in contact with the ball and when that player is:
a. A dribbler;
b. Attempting a try for field goal; or
c. Holding the ball.

No player control? then contact not within this exception.

So it's either a foul or out on outside guy. I suppose technically under the rules some would say it's a foul, but I can't imagine that is the way anyone in D1 calls it. in any event, it's not out on the inside guy, and no one at the college level should be under the impression that is the right call, because there was no player control. High school might not have the player control language, I don't know. Of course if it doesn't, I imagine it is simple oversight.

On related note, watched game yesterday, don't know who, where late, might have been UK/Alabama? Yes it was. Bama ahead 3 maybe, has backcourt throwin, 30 seconds or so left, the Bama player receiving throw-in has arm hit by defender and ball goes out of bounds, call was off of Bama. On replay crystal clear it was a foul, technically off Bama but the ballhandler was fouled, ball still went to UK. Bama ended up winning, but could have lost due to that call.

I'm not saying the should expand the circumstances under which the review, but when they review, if they see a foul in the play being reviewed that is determinative, as here, they should be able to get it right. The announcer, Bilas I believe said as much.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Jay Bilas is an idiot. I have nothing of value to add to the conversation other than to say if you’re getting your rules knowledge or interpretations from him, you may find yourself labeled in the same camp as him.

[thedewed]

Bilus wasn't saying they should expand the number of reviews, but when they did review, they might as well go ahead and get it right. Hard to argue with that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

...

I'm not saying the should expand the circumstances under which the review, but when they review, if they see a foul in the play being reviewed that is determinative, as here, they should be able to get it right. The announcer, Bilas I believe said as much.

Something Jay Bilas and those of the same mindset need to address to the coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners who write the rules. We only enforce the rules, and one of those rules is that replay cannot be used to assess non-flagrant fouls.

[thedewed]

He wasn't commenting on the officiating, he was commenting on the fact they couldn't address a foul in the replay, and he was making a valid point.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Something Jay Bilas and those of the same mindset need to address to the coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners who write the rules. We only enforce the rules, and one of those rules is that replay cannot be used to assess non-flagrant fouls.

Exactly.

The coaches never get any blame for these rules that they write that fans, commentators, and writers always complain about.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I'm not saying the should expand the circumstances under which the review, but when they review, if they see a foul in the play being reviewed that is determinative, as here, they should be able to get it right. The announcer, Bilas I believe said as much.

As I recall, the NBA tweaked its rule because of a play like this in a game involving the Lakers. Late in a close game, ball was awarded to Lakers on an OOB call. Review showed (1) the ball was last touched by a Laker, and (2) there was a clear foul on the opponent. Only (1) was reviewable, so the call on the floor was reversed and the other team got the ball.